The court emphasized that delay in filing appeals must be justified adequately; mere claims of parity with other cases do not suffice to condone significant delays under the Limitation Act.

JUDGMENT :

VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL, J.

This appeal is filed by the claimant seeking for higher compensation being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 29.10.2002 passed in LAC No.140/2002 by the II Addl. Civil Judge Senior Division, Bagalkot.

2. Heard Sri.Sajid Goodwala for Sri.Jagadish Patil, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri.Keshav Reddy, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent.

3. It is averred that the appellant is the owner of the land bearing R.S.No.236 measuring 2 acres 18 guntas situated at Semikeri village, Bagalkot taluk and district, which has been acquired for Upper Krishna Project vide preliminary notification dated 15.09.1998. The Special Land Acquisition Officer passed an award determining the market value of the land at Rs.22,428/- per acre. The appellant sought reference and the Reference Court enhanced the compensation to Rs.45,000/- per acre under the impugned judgment and award. Being aggrieved, the present appeal is filed seeking for higher compensation.

4. The present appeal is filed along with I.A.No.1/2019 seeking to condone the delay of 5999 days in preferring the appeal. In support of the application seeking for condonation of delay, appellant has filed his affidavit showing cause for the delay.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant’s land has been acquired for public purpose and the Reference Court has determined the market value at Rs.45,000/- per acre. It is submitted that the similarly placed land owners challenged the judgment and award of the Reference Court before this Court and this Court allowed the appeal by condoning delay and enhanced the market value to Rs.7,84,410/- per acre. It is submitted that the land owners preferred an appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court seeking for higher compensation and the Hon’ble Supreme Court further enhanced the compensation to Rs.8,78,200/- per acre and considering the aforesaid decisions of this Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the appellant filed this appeal seeking compensation on the ground of parity. It is submitted that delay cannot be the only ground to dismiss the appeal and the Court is required to consider the merit of the matter. It is further submitted that the word ‘sufficient cause’ is required to be interpreted liberally in case of the land looser. It is also submitted that the similarly placed persons are getting higher compensation and considering the same, delay is required to be condoned. In support of his contention he placed reliance on the following decisions:

i. Collector, Land Acquisition V/s MST Katji and Others , [AIR 1987 SC 1353]

ii. Imrat Lal and Others V/s Land Acquisition Collector , [(2014) 14 SCC 133]

iii. Dhiraj Singh V/s State of Haryana , [(2014) 14 SCC 127]

iv. K. Subbarayadu and Others V/s The Special Deputy Collector , [2017 SAR (Civil) 1003]

v. Ningappa Thotappa Angadi V/s The Special Land Acquisition Officer , [2019 Supp (2) SAR (Civil)1247]

vi. Huchangouda V/s The Asst. Commissioner , [2020(1) LACC 632 (SC)]

vii. Ram Chander and Others V/s Union of India and Anr. , 2020(15) SCC 491

6. He seeks to condone the delay and allow the appeal in terms of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and re-determine the compensation at Rs.8,78,200/- per acre.

7. Per contra, Sri.Keshav Reddy, learned Additional Advocate General submits that the appellant is a fence sitter and has approached this Court after an enormous delay of more than 16½ years. It is submitted that the acquisition of land is for Upper Krishna Project and the State has allocated certain funds for the s